I really hate to bust your bubble, AB, but the Electoral College did exactly what it was designed to do. Deal with it.
That varies greatly depending on one’s point of view, and, in the grand scheme of things, remains to be seen. At this point, we don’t have anywhere near enough information to say if the electors did their job properly or not.
If the President-Elect does the job in the same manner as his predecessors (partisan views with which the constituency may disagree, however vehemently, aside) then that’s a fair statement to make.
If he does not, then they failed, as their job is to elect someone who would.
No. Their job is to vote the way the people in their state told them to vote. Period.
This came from my bro-in-law, don’t know where he got it but it is reasonably accurate:
Note - I checked the county count. It is correct, according to whatAP is reporting.
By most accounts Hillary won the nationwide vote total by about 2 million votes and won California by a margin of over 4 million. That’s the reason for the EC, without it California would decide every election.
No it’s not; that’s neither their function nor their purpose.
If it were, they’d be mandated to do so at the federal level.
Their job is to “save the people from themselves” & prevent the “uneducated masses” from making the wrong decision.
Some states have laws at that level that require their electors to do that, but it’s not universal. (Not to mention that, in a lot of cases, those laws exist to punish electors who don’t vote that way, rather than invalidate the votes themselves.)
Because Loving County (89% of which went for Trump) should matter just as much as Los Angeles County (72% of which went for Clinton) or Cook County (66% of which went for Clinton) or Harris County (54% of which went for Clinton).
Never mind that Loving county had like 65 people in it who voted, and Los Angeles County had about 5 million.
Y’think your statistic might be a little bit skewed by empty, podunk counties in the middle of fucking nowhere whose population density is about two hillbillies and a pickup truck per square mile?
To be honest, that’s really just self-serving bullshit. It’s brilliant until your side gets fucked by it. I don’t care. My thoughts have been reflected in this thread, and the result is the result, but before election day came along, my Trump supporting friends were nervous about the opposite result: Trump winning popular and Hillary winning the EC, and were asking me why the EC is in place if the US is a “democracy.” Now they’re all big fans of the EC. Imagine that. I don’t care either way.
When the system was set up, that was not their job. Why do you think that you know the EC’s job better than the people who set up the system in the first place?
Tell me where in the constitution it gives land the right to vote.
Just for my edification, what’s the difference when comparing the proportion of California residents to the country as a whole & the proportion of California electoral votes to the EC total?
The EC is supposed to have numbers that make the 2 roughly equivalent, which would invalidate that point; but, as you made that point, I assume that’s not actually the case?
How does that not constitute an admission of trolling?
And we did just that, but to no avail.
The provisions about the Senate and the Electoral College? For better or worse we aren’t one giant homogeneous country. The USA consists of states and local regions, and we have a bicameral legislature to try to balance territory v. population. Do you really want a system where elections are decided by 50.0001% of the vote?
Fact of the matter is the founders didn’t want pure democracy, neither did the Athenians who helped inspire the American system of government.
They were smart enough to know that pure democracy led to mob rule, and “tyranny of stupidity” which is why they put systems like the electoral college in check.
And if shit like this is indication of the average Democratic voterbase today, then it almost begins to make property ownership being a perquisite for voting again seem like a good idea:
So…you think that the country should be dictated to by a few densely populated counties?
Popular vote, county vote, who cares? It’s the electoral vote that matters and Trump got it. End of discussion.
Completely agree.
The EC is supposed to serve two separate and distinct purposes: ensure that the interests of less populous states are not dominated by the most populous ones, and act as a safeguard against the possibility of uninformed voters being bamboozled into electing a dangerous idiot. It’s the latter where they utterly failed. If it didn’t have this purpose, the EC wouldn’t need to exist – you would just need the electoral districts, and the winner would be declared automatically based on who won the most districts.
But the purpose of the EC envisioned by the Founders as a safeguard against the catastrophic potential of voter ignorance is precisely why humans are involved in the EC process. And it turns out that, by dint of tradition, the EC has become more or less a genteel club of senile oldsters who get together for drinks and to vote pretty much strictly by the book. And that’s exactly what happened.
I also agree with the OP that it would have been a mistake for the EC to hand the election to Clinton, much as I would have liked that. The thinking should have been that the Republican side won the EC tally and so a Republican should be the next president, just not Trump (who isn’t even a Republican anyway).
I don’t know if the county numbers are necessarily correct, but they’re probably in the ballpark. But so what? It’s very misleading, because they’re even more skewed than the EC results. The EC allocations are specifically designed to give more weight to less populous states. If you focus only on counties won, you take that to a whole new level, looking at voting patterns based on land acreage rather than population, effectively giving as much weight to a bunch of empty farmland with one hayseed living on it as you do to a significant-sized city. And since rural hayseeds tend to have less education and political knowledge than urban residents, even in flyover country, a weighting that overwhelmingly favors them is naturally going to look like a Trump landslide. It reflects, among other things, the fact that the urban/rural demographic is at least as much of a political differentiator as the differences between red and blue states, sometimes much more.
Trump got the Electoral votes that will allow him to be inaugurated.
But he’s bothered by losing the Popular vote, so we will keep bringing it up. (Apparently it bothers you, too. Oh, and how about Harris County going for Clinton?)
I don’t like the Jacoby 2NT convention but we’re stuck with it when playing in a Yellow Card event. Similarly, the Electoral College system is a fact of life. Live with it!
But please do let us not resort to gibberish in trying to make a silk purse of a sow’s ear!
Trump won Michigan by a popular margin of 10,704 votes. Dividing by MI’s 16 electoral votes, we see that each of those surplus voters had an electoral weight of almost 1500 micro-evs! Clinton won California by a popular margin of 4,269,978 votes. Dividing by CA’s 55 electoral votes, we see that each of those surplus voters had an electoral weight of less than 13 micro-evs. Michigan voters were given 116 times the weight of California’s voters in this calculus! Is this an appropriate response to the country’s “non-homogeneity”? Was this disparity in fulfillment of some noble purposes of our Founding Fathers?
Delaware is a tiny state, but it still gets the same electoral bonus as big states like Alaska or Montana. Does this further some sublime purpose? Rhode Island is even smaller. Was Roger Williams’ expulsion from Massachusetts almost 4 centuries ago so important to American culture as to justify the extra political power of this tiniest state?
The application of the electoral system turned into tragedy, but most of us didn’t expect an elector revolt. But let’s not insult Dopers’ intelligence with nonsensical pretense that the system has merit.
“Do you really want a system where elections are decided by 50.0001% of the vote?”
I don’t know what wisdom those 000’s are intended to convey. Trump got 25.4% of eligible voters, Clinton 26.6%.
Something that just occurred to me: the EC was made under the assumption that whoever was chosen as electors would just automatically “know better” than the average voter and would be completely willing to act in a circumstance that would cause a huge number of citizens to hate him and feel disenfranchised. I’m not sure those assumptions hold up, either then or now.